Choos has shown you a picture with some darker soil surrounded by lighter soil, that looks rather disturbed to me. It even has lighter soil that
looks remarkably like footprints pressed down into the darker disturbed soil.

The propagandists preference data used to measure the relative magnitudes of independent regolith response variables precludes an empirical systematic
relationship between the parameter estimates of varying albedo regression categories within the referenced predicted probability of regolith
transformations, inevitably establishing significant logistical intricacies or otherwise substantially trending towards an untenable convoluted albedo
hypothesis which can only be sustained deep within the recesses of the Apollogarchy...

originally posted by: Misinformation
The propagandists preference data used to measure the relative magnitudes of independent regolith response variables precludes an empirical systematic
relationship between the parameter estimates of varying albedo regression categories within the referenced predicted probability of regolith
transformations, inevitably establishing significant logistical intricacies or otherwise substantially trending towards an untenable convoluted albedo
hypothesis which can only be sustained deep within the recesses of the Apollogarchy...

Choos has shown you a picture with some darker soil surrounded by lighter soil, that looks rather disturbed to me. It even has lighter soil that
looks remarkably like footprints pressed down into the darker disturbed soil.

Why are you ignoring this?

Again, the footprints are not relevant to the area claimed to be disturbed BY THE LANDER!!

Choos has shown you a picture with some darker soil surrounded by lighter soil, that looks rather disturbed to me. It even has lighter soil that
looks remarkably like footprints pressed down into the darker disturbed soil.

Why are you ignoring this?

Again, the footprints are not relevant to the area claimed to be disturbed BY THE LANDER!!

Do you get it?

do you understand now why i say it is harder to see??
the fact that the bootprints are so much brighter than any of the surrounding regolith proves you have no understanding of what you are looking at,
and more so that you say that it is irrelevant..

even though it is right there in front of your face you do not even recognise what you are looking at.

so again,
explain to me why in that red circle that a hard impression in the lunar regolith such as the bootprints makes them so much brighter than any of the
surrounding lunar regolith.
explain to me why the regolith is darker than the surrounding area within the red circle.

last time im asking you,
give your OPINION on why there are three different shades of brightness.
failure to give your opinion makes all of your posts about the disturbance null and void, since you do not have an opinion about this.
if i feed you the answer then you give your opinion it just ridicules your own opinion.
It will just prove that prior to me drip feeding you the answer, you had no prior opinion about the lunar disturbance.
That in turn proves that you have no clue about anything. All you have is your own belief that man didnt land on the moon, and you make up everything
else to fit that one made up scenario, Kind of like how compulsive liars act.

all of it is evident since you have demonstrated you dont have an opinion on this one little thing.

Choos has shown you a picture with some darker soil surrounded by lighter soil, that looks rather disturbed to me. It even has lighter soil that
looks remarkably like footprints pressed down into the darker disturbed soil.

Why are you ignoring this?

Again, the footprints are not relevant to the area claimed to be disturbed BY THE LANDER!!

Do you get it?

do you understand now why i say it is harder to see??
the fact that the bootprints are so much brighter than any of the surrounding regolith proves you have no understanding of what you are looking at,
and more so that you say that it is irrelevant..

even though it is right there in front of your face you do not even recognise what you are looking at.

so again,
explain to me why in that red circle that a hard impression in the lunar regolith such as the bootprints makes them so much brighter than any of the
surrounding lunar regolith.
explain to me why the regolith is darker than the surrounding area within the red circle.

last time im asking you,
give your OPINION on why there are three different shades of brightness.
failure to give your opinion makes all of your posts about the disturbance null and void, since you do not have an opinion about this.
if i feed you the answer then you give your opinion it just ridicules your own opinion.
It will just prove that prior to me drip feeding you the answer, you had no prior opinion about the lunar disturbance.
That in turn proves that you have no clue about anything. All you have is your own belief that man didnt land on the moon, and you make up everything
else to fit that one made up scenario, Kind of like how compulsive liars act.

all of it is evident since you have demonstrated you dont have an opinion on this one little thing.

What do your footprints prove?

They prove a disturbance on the surface would be seen, from the ground...

A single footprint can be seen.

At closer range, the feature - your footprint - is only MORE defined, and MORE CLEAR to see, as a footprint....right?

This is because the footprint is a real physical feature.

You even show me all kinds of examples of features, that are clearly seen on the ground!!

Choos has shown you a picture with some darker soil surrounded by lighter soil, that looks rather disturbed to me. It even has lighter soil that
looks remarkably like footprints pressed down into the darker disturbed soil.

Why are you ignoring this?

Again, the footprints are not relevant to the area claimed to be disturbed BY THE LANDER!!

Do you get it?

do you understand now why i say it is harder to see??
the fact that the bootprints are so much brighter than any of the surrounding regolith proves you have no understanding of what you are looking at,
and more so that you say that it is irrelevant..

even though it is right there in front of your face you do not even recognise what you are looking at.

so again,
explain to me why in that red circle that a hard impression in the lunar regolith such as the bootprints makes them so much brighter than any of the
surrounding lunar regolith.
explain to me why the regolith is darker than the surrounding area within the red circle.

last time im asking you,
give your OPINION on why there are three different shades of brightness.
failure to give your opinion makes all of your posts about the disturbance null and void, since you do not have an opinion about this.
if i feed you the answer then you give your opinion it just ridicules your own opinion.
It will just prove that prior to me drip feeding you the answer, you had no prior opinion about the lunar disturbance.
That in turn proves that you have no clue about anything. All you have is your own belief that man didnt land on the moon, and you make up everything
else to fit that one made up scenario, Kind of like how compulsive liars act.

all of it is evident since you have demonstrated you dont have an opinion on this one little thing.

What do your footprints prove?

They prove a disturbance on the surface would be seen, from the ground...

it proves that when lunar regolith is compressed it reflects more light..

so then why??

A single footprint can be seen.

a single footprint?? are you blind?? or just being intellectually dishonest??

there is atleast 10 within the circle that is visible... but that isnt the point, the boot prints are clearly more reflective than the surrounding
regolith. WHY???

At closer range, the feature - your footprint - is only MORE defined, and MORE CLEAR to see, as a footprint....right?

This is because the footprint is a real physical feature.

You even show me all kinds of examples of features, that are clearly seen on the ground!!

Agreed, then!

not the point im making, why is it that you always seem to miss the points people make??..

however, im talking about the BRIGHTNESS of the boot print and NOT THE SHAPE, to further put that point across since as you claim the closer we get
the easier the difference is noticable here is a famous bootprint.

now tell me why the surrounding regolith is not dark like in this below image?

according to you, since the first image is closer to the bootprint we should see the difference in shading alot more clearly..

so why is it that it is more difficult??? why in the second image are the bootprints so much brighter than the surrounding regolith???

Turbonium obviously hasn't read any of the papers I linked to, and seems to think we should be looking at burnt crispy lunar surface under the path of
the LM. If he looks up quickly enough he might see the point flying overhead.

So that we don't lose sight of all the wood in the midst of the trees, the photo choos has linked to is part of a short series of images that can be
made into a panorama. Here is that panorama, I made it myself this morning.

It features a shallow crater pair, which is itself peppered with smaller craters. That crater pair appears in other images, including those taken from
inside the LM, the live TV images, and the 16mm footage.

Here is one of the LRO shots of the LM showing that crater pair, which I've re-oriented to show the roughly the same viewing angle as the panorama
above:

It isn't the clearest shot of the LM, but it does show the craters more clearly.

Do I need to draw some arrows on to match up the features? It isn't hard for people looking properly to identify them, but I'm willing to bet
turbonium will suddenly develop severe myopia

Lunar Orbiter images taken before Apollo do show that crater pair, but they do not show the details within those craters. Apollo does, and they match
the Lunar Orbiter images.

I'l keep repeating it: it isn't just about the equipment and the astronaut tracks, it's every single tiny little detail. They all match.

originally posted by: turbonium1
You can't address the issue, obviously.

The issue I'm discussing - or trying to discuss, anyway - is the disturbance claimed to be caused by an Apollo LM.

It has nothing to do with footprints.

nothing at all you say????

does a bootprint compress the lunar regolith beneath it??

will the LM engine compress the lunar regolith beneath it???

according to you, one is yes the other is no..

Your claim is that the LM caused a disturbance. It didn't cause any footprints, so trying to make this about footprints won't wash

Avoid problems you can't deal with, like usual.

lol you are the classic example of avoiding problems.. you have never once answered any question asked of you.. never once..

ill put it frank to you since you dont have an opinion on this matter:

the bootprint is capable of reflecting more sunlight because it is relatively highly compressed when compared with untouched regolith.
the LM engine will also compress lunar regolith when it was landing also making the regolith slightly brighter.
the darker areas are very loose regolith that had been kicked up by the astronauts.

it doesnt matter what your opinion is anymore since you have proven you have not got a clue and could not even give your opinion on the matter.

the only opinion you gave was that the difference will become more clear the closer you get.. but in these two little images it proves you wrong:

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.